Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Uncategorized

Perry says Obama 'wanted' border crisis to occur

Politics is a cynical business.

It results in politicians saying some pretty outrageous things — often about themselves but usually about their opponents.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has added another chapter to the Book of Cynical Commentary.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/07/perry-obama-administration-inept-or-has-ulterior-motive-191578.html?hp=l10

He said over the weekend that President Barack Obama might have wanted the crisis along the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California borders with Mexico to occur.

“I have to believe when you do not respond in any way, you are either inept or have some ulterior motive that you are functioning from,” the lame-duck Republican governor said on ABC’s “This Week.” Moderator Martha Raddatz had challenged him about earlier comments he made that implied the president might have helped Central American immigrants enter the United States illegally.

I’d go with the competence issue before I’d ever consider some kind of plot to create a crisis where none need exist. This kind of nonsense falls in line with the idiocy spouted recently by former Vice President Dick Cheney that the president is deliberately trying to weaken the United States.

We now have the Texas governor — another loose rhetorical cannon — suggesting the president might have wanted the young people to flood into this country to create a hideous border patrol nightmare. Why? For what purpose does the president of the United States of America deliberately allow such chaos?

I suppose one can chalk it up to another salvo in Perry’s increasingly likely run for the presidency. He’ll leave the Texas governor’s office in January; then he’ll probably start prepping for another run at the GOP nomination for the White House.

Gov. Perry will have to do better than what he demonstrated over the weekend.

Uncategorized

To what end, Mr. Speaker?

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner is “frustrated.” He acknowledges that President Obama is frustrated and so are “the American people” frustrated with the lack of cohesion in our federal government.

The speaker’s remedy? He says he wants to sue the president for exercising his executive authority.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/john-boehner-obama-so-sue-me-reaction-constitution-108601.html?hp=f1

I can barely contain my disdain for this nonsense.

Boehner wrote an op-ed for CNN.com in which he said Obama has failed to “faithfully execute” his office under the Constitution. Why didn’t he gripe when President Bush was issuing executive orders at a greater clip than his successor has done?

I have this sense that the president has hurt the speaker’s feelings with his quips from various podiums in recent weeks. “So sue me,” was his latest barb, in which he said he wouldn’t apologize for doing things using his constitutionally granted authority allows him to do.

Boehner says Obama is circumventing the legislative process and is stripping Congress of its own authority.

In a fascinating twist, though, one of the speaker’s own allies — Erick Erickson, of Redstate.com — writes in another commentary that Boehner is engaging in “political theater.”

He has no end game, Erickson writes, adding that there’s nothing to be gained from this wasteful exercise.

“I realize John Boehner and the House Republicans may lack the testicular fortitude to fight President Obama,” he wrote, “but I would kindly ask that he save the taxpayers further money on a political stunt solely designed to incite Republican voters.”

“John Boehner’s lawsuit is nothing more than political theater and a further Republican waste of taxpayer dollars,” Erickson said.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Uncategorized

Infrastructure now becomes controversial

Americans not even as old as I am can no doubt remember when infrastructure spending drew support from politicians of both parties.

It was a consensus deal. Get it done. We need those roads and bridges in tip-top shape. We drive our motor vehicles over them. We’re carrying the kids and pets in our SUVs. We’re hauling travel trailers across the country.

Hey, these are our public roads and highways and we need to spend public money to keep them maintained.

Remember those days?

They’re gone.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-mocks-congress-highway-spending-108491.html

President Obama wants to spend money to fix our roads, bridges and highways. They’ll create thousands of jobs. And, yes, they’ll make our roadways safer for Mom, Dad and the Kids.

To no one’s surprise these days, Congress is digging in on that one, too.

Obama spoke the other day at a bridge that needs repair. He’s asking Congress to reauthorize money for an infrastructure trust fund that’s about to run dry. Congress isn’t moving on it. Imagine that.

The House of Representatives, where these spending initiatives begin, is run by Republicans who are angry with the Democratic president because of his taunts over his executive action. “So sue me,” Obama said the other day when he mentioned employing the executive authority he possesses.

The notion of spending money to keep the country moving safely is supposed to be a bipartisan effort. Sadly, nothing of substance enjoys bipartisan support. Who’s to blame? Republicans blame Obama; the president blames them.

The system is broken, ladies and gentlemen. Meanwhile, our bridges and highways are crumbling beneath us.

Repair our infrastructure before someone gets hurt.

Uncategorized

POTUS plans immigration push

As one who generally endorses the notion of presidential prerogative, I welcome the news that Barack Obama is going to use the power of his office to move immigration reform forward — with our without congressional buy-in.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/210995-obama-pledges-to-take-executive-actions-on-immigration

Obama is steamed that Congress won’t vote this year on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It seems to matter little that most members of Congress — including Republicans — want reform legislation enacted. House Speaker John Boehner says it won’t happen because, he says, lawmakers and “the American people” don’t trust the president to enforce immigration laws.

Obama’s response: “If Congress will not do its job, at least we can do ours.”

He hasn’t yet specified how he’ll act. He plans on the Fourth of July to naturalize several U.S. military men and women who aren’t yet citizens.

“I don’t prefer taking administrative action,” Obama said in a Rose Garden event, standing beside Vice President Biden. “I’ve made that clear multiple times. … I only take executive action when we have a serious problem, a serious issue, and Congress chooses to do nothing.”

Congress already is angry over what it says is the president’s “excessive” use of executive authority. That’s a phony argument on its face, given that Barack Obama has issued fewer such orders than any president of the past 100 years.

The president has asked for more money to secure our borders in the wake of the Central America immigration crisis that has stranded thousands of illegal immigrants — mostly children and young adults — on our southern border. Boehner’s response to date? He’s just content to dig in his heels even more.

The Constitution and federal law give the president wide latitude on taking action. As the president has noted, Congress should lead, follow or get out of the way.

Uncategorized

Time to pony up on border emergency

Republicans in Congress have been griping about Barack Obama’s so-called imperial presidency.

They want the president to consult more with them before acting.

OK, then. The president — and Congress — have a serious border emergency on their hands right here in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. It involves the mass migration of thousands of children and adults from Central America.

To help fight the problem believed to part of an international human trafficking ring, the president has asked Congress for more than $2 billion in emergency money to beef up detention facilities along the border and to bolster border security.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/29/obama-to-request-billions-to-deal-with-border-crisis/?hpt=hp_t1

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has asked the president to do more. So has Texas Gov. Rick Perry, another Republican.

The question of the day: Will GOP lawmakers consent to the request or will they continue to dig in their heels, contending that the United States can’t afford the money and, thus, keep sniping away at the administration for its “failure” to protect the border against illegal immigration?

CNN.com reports it this way: “A White House official told CNN the money will go to securing appropriate space for the detention of children but also stemming the tide of immigrants. The government hopes to increase its ability to investigate and dismantle smuggling organizations as well as quickly return children and adults to their home countries if they do not qualify for asylum.”

For his part, Obama is sending stern messages to governments south of Mexico. “Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they’ll get sent back. More importantly, they may not make it,” Obama said to ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Can he do more? Sure. First, though, he needs the resources, meaning the money, to pay for the stepped-up efforts to stop the illegal immigrant flow. The funds can come from Congress.

Will the legislative branch put it up?

Uncategorized

WMD crisis averted

The world can focus only on one crisis at a time, or so it seems.

The Syria crisis gave way to the Ukraine crisis, which then gave way to the Nigeria girl-kidnap crisis, which then made way for the Iraq crisis.

Back to Syria. Remember the “red line” President Obama drew and then said the United States would strike militarily at Syria if it used chemical weapons against its people? The Syrians did. The president blustered, threatened to hit them hard, then asked Congress for permission.

Then came the Russians, who then brokered a deal that persuaded the Syrians to get rid of the gas they used on their citizens.

You know what? It now appears the last of the weapons are gone. Destroyed. We never fired a shot at them.

It’s not entirely clear that all the weapons are gone, as the New York Times editorial notes with caution. The “known weapons” have been removed and destroyed. It remains to be seen whether the entire cache of WMD is gone.

Still, it is worth noting that Obama’s critics had it wrong when they blasted him for failing to act on the “red line” threat, even though Republicans kept insisting the president seek congressional approval before he did anything. The president did that — but it wasn’t good enough to suit the critics.

Barack Obama took office in January 2009 vowing to bring diplomacy back as a tool to help stem international crises. He’s sought to do that, all the while deploying military might when needed. Drone strikes have been effective at killing terrorists. Let us not forget what happened in early May 2011 when the SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in that daring raid to wipe out Terrorist No. 1.

The Syrian crisis is far from over. People are still dying in a civil war. Bashar al-Assad’s forces have taken back the momentum in the struggle.

One key element of that crisis — those dreaded WMD — has been removed. As the New York Times editorial notes: “President Obama’s critics excoriated the deal, but they have been proved wrong. The chemical weapons are now out of the hands of a brutal dictator — and all without firing a shot.”

Uncategorized

Judicial independence bites Obama

Barack Obama has just gotten a taste of what many of his presidential predecessors have had to swallow as it regards federal judicial appointments.

Their court appointments didn’t vote nearly the way their benefactor — the president — wanted them to vote.

That, I submit, speaks quite eloquently to the need to keep the federal judiciary independent.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-27/obama-goes-too-far-for-even-supreme-court-liberals

In two 9-0 rulings in recent days, the court struck down a Massachusetts law that regulated anti-abortion protesters and then it reeled in presidential appointment powers relating to recess appointments made when the Senate is not in session.

That means both of President Obama’s high court picks — Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — voted against the wishes of the man who nominated them to their dream job in the first place.

We hear yammering — mostly from the right wing of the political spectrum — that “unelected judges” wield too much power. This carping comes usually when the court rules against a cause or principle near and dear to conservatives’ hearts.

Indeed, the court has comprised many Republican appointees who’ve gone against the wishes of their presidential benefactors: Dwight Eisenhower picked Earl Warren to be chief justice and all Warren did was launch the Supreme Court on a whole range of landmark liberal court rulings, starting with the 1954 school desegregation ruling known as Brown v. the Board of Education.

Harry Blackmum (picked by Richard Nixon) wrote the Roe v. Wade abortion decision; John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford) became a staunch liberal court member; Byron White (John Kennedy) voted “no” on Roe v. Wade; John Roberts (George W. Bush) voted with the majority to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

Now two of the court’s liberal justices — Kagan and Sotomayor — have joined their fellow liberals and conservatives on the court to stick it in President Obama’s eye on a couple of key issues.

So, let’s stop the griping about the federal court system. The founders set up an independent branch of government for a reason, which was to prevent its politicization when trying to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

Uncategorized

Boehner changes mind on executive orders

It still boggles my mind that John Boehner wants to sue the president of the United States for exercising his constitutional rights as the nation’s chief executive.

That is, the president has decided to issue executive orders — imagine that — to move projects forward.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/25/3453244/boehner-executive-order-suit/

Why, how dare he do that, says the speaker of the House of Representatives.

Well, as it’s been reported on the link attached to this post, it was just fine for President George W. Bush to use executive authority, but not President Barack Obama.

Obama has pulled out his executive signing pen fewer times than Bush ever did. He’s done far fewer times than many of his predecessors.

But that hasn’t dissuaded the speaker from taking the president to court in what many people think now is a stunt, a sop to the tea party wing of his Republican congressional caucus.

Wait a minute. Didn’t Boehner once declare that the tea party wing wasn’t to be taken seriously? Didn’t he incur their wrath when he said that?

The wrath must have gotten to the speaker, who’s now saying that the president has failed to carry out his duties “faithfully,” whatever that means.

Today, the Supreme Court stuck it to the president when it voted 9-0 in ruling that Obama’s recess appointments were improper. I get the court’s standing in reeling in the president’s executive authority in making these appointments while Congress is in recess.

I do not quite understand what in the world has riled the speaker enough to sue the president for doing what the Constitution says he is entitled to do.

Maybe the speaker will let us all in what he has in mind … in due course.

Uncategorized

Who should be filing suit?

Shouldn’t it be taxpayers suing Congress for LACK of action, instead of Congress suing the President for doing too much?

So said David Axelrod in a tweet just a few moments ago.

Axelrod is to President Barack Obama what Karl Rove is to President George W. Bush. I guess we should call Axelrod “Obama’s Brain,” correct?

But the former White House senior policy/political adviser does make a good point about House Speaker John Boehner’s decision to sue President Obama over the president’s supposedly “excessive” use of executive authority.

Axelrod wonders why Americans aren’t suing the do-nothing Congress for sitting on its hands while President Obama is trying to push programs forward.

I get that some Americans are glad to have Congress doing nothing. They welcome the stalling, fighting, arguing, threatening and obstruction that’s been occurring in Congress.

I’m more of a good-government kind of guy, even though some folks might consider the term “good-government” be an oxymoron — kind of like “military intelligence” or “jumbo shrimp,” to borrow two of the late George Carlin’s examples.

For the speaker, though, to suggest that Obama is overreaching with his executive authority when the president has used that authority less than any of his predecessors over the past century, does seem to be a bit of an overreach in itself.

Uncategorized

Turnabout not always fair play, says GOP

Thad Cochran’s stunning reversal of fortune in Mississippi makes me laugh.

OK, so I’m just snickering under my breath. But it does create some interesting water-cooler talk among Republican Party political strategists.

Cochran, R-Miss., was supposed to lose the Mississippi GOP runoff to tea party darling Chris McDaniel on Tuesday. Instead, he won. How? Apparently by enlisting the support of African-American Democrats to vote in the Republican primary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-cochrans-strategy-to-draw-black-democrats-to-polls-appears-to-have-worked/2014/06/25/74d72932-fc8a-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html

That strategy didn’t go down well with hard-core Republicans. McDaniel himself said that Cochran owed his victory to “liberal Democrats” who were afraid to face a true conservative — such as McDaniel.

It well might be that the Democrats who crossed over to back Cochran will rue the day they did so, as the incumbent six-term senator will be a heavy favorite to win a seventh term this November.

There’s a certain richness in the irony of the GOP’s complaints about Cochran’s winning formula.

Some Republican leaders — and I’ll include the GOP’s blowhard in chief, Rush Limbaugh, in this category — at one time encouraged Republicans to cross over to vote for Democrats in an effort to serve as spoiler in hotly contested Democratic primaries. That clearly was the case in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign between U.S. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. The 2008 Texas primary, for example, became notable because of the huge interest in the Democratic ballot, particularly in areas such as the Panhandle, where Democrats are nearly extinct.

Limbaugh and others were exhorting Republicans to vote for Clinton, hoping the party would nominate her in the belief she’d be easier to beat in the fall than Obama.

It didn’t work out that way, of course.

Now, though, they’re yammering about a reversal of that strategy — because, apparently, it worked.

Cry me a river.